Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 9-16 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden is present. This is not found persuasive because serious burden is required for patent applications restricted based on US requirements. The current application is national stage application and restriction is based on unity of invention with no requirements needed for serious burden. As stated in the restriction requirement, no special technical feature exists between the groups of invention and restriction is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitto et al. (BR 102012031547 previously cited) in view of Gu et al. (CN 108423959 machine translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 9, Vitto teaches an apparatus comprising a reactor for hydrolysis (3), a decanter (6), a closed system dryer as claimed (14), a reactor for pyrolysis (15), and an anaerobic digester/bioreactor, wherein all elements of the system are fluidly connected on one another (Fig. 1 and page 3 of MT).
It is noted that the specific order is not positively claimed, only that the various elements are fluidly connected to one another, which may be fluidly connected directly or indirectly.
Vitto teaches a reactor for hydrolysis but in its description, it describes chemical hydrolysis and not thermal hydrolysis. Therefore, it is unclear if the hydrolysis reactor in Vitto is capable of allowing thermal hydrolysis. Gu teaches a similar apparatus having a reactor for thermal hydrolysis, a solids liquid separator, a dryer, a reactor for pyrolysis, and an anaerobic digester/bioreactor, wherein all elements of the system are fluidly connected on one another (Fig. 1 and pages 2-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the thermal hydrolysis unit instead of the chemical hydrolysis unit as such a unit is also known to achieve the desired hydrolysis prior to pyrolysis in similar systems with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Vitto teaches using waste heat in certain ways but fails to teach using waste heat in the system via heat exchangers. Gu teaches that the waste heat in the system can be used to heat incoming sludge thereby reducing the amount of heat needed for thermal hydrolysis and pyrolysis (Pages 2-4). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide heat exchangers in order to use the waste heat in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 16, Vitto teaches that the dryer can include at least two waste inlets for different waste streams prior to drying the solids prior to pyrolysis (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitto et al. (BR 102012031547 previously cited) in view of Gu et al. (CN 108423959 machine translation provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Solheim et al. (US 2014/0251902).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that while Vitto appears to teach a closed system with even the drying gas being recirculated in the system, it could be argued that the line from the hydrolysis reactor to the anaerobic reactor would include a gas outlet. However, as such a specific outlet is not positively taught, it could be argued that Vitto fails to teach a gas outlet as claimed. Solheim teaches that it is known for the gas formed in the hydrolysis reactor to be moved to an anaerobic digesters via a gas outlet from the hydrolysis reactor in order for biological breakdown and elimination of odors in said gas ([0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a specific gas outlet as claimed as part of the hydrolysis reactor in order for biological breakdown and elimination of odors in said gas.
Regarding claim 11, Vitto teaches that the dryer/dewatering unit is provided with a specific gas outlet fluidly connected to the bioreactor but fails to teach the decanter also providing a gas outlet fluidly connected to the bioreactor. It is Examiner’s position that providing a gas outlet in the decanter would allow for the same recycling of the gas through the bioreactor thereby allowing for further biological breakdown and elimination of odors in the gas from the decanter.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitto et al. (BR 102012031547 previously cited) in view of Gu et al. (CN 108423959 machine translation provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lasonde et al. (US 2010/0206499).
Regarding claim 12, Vitto teaches a dryer but fails to teach the specific dryer used being a superheated steam dryer. Lasonde teaches that common examples of dryers in the art used for the same purpose of drying solids would include a rotary dryer, steam dryer, superheated steam dryer, or low temperature dryer ([0030]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a superheated stream dryer as the specific dryer in Vitto as such dryers are known and used in the art and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitto et al. (BR 102012031547 previously cited) in view of Gu et al. (CN 108423959 machine translation provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Mason (US 2004/0024279).
Regarding claim 13, Vitto teaches a pyrolysis reactor but fails to disclose if the pyrolysis reactor is an electrical heater based pyrolysis reactor. Mason teaches that electrical pyrolysis reactors are known and used in the art. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use an electrical heater pyrolysis reactor with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitto et al. (BR 102012031547 previously cited) in view of Gu et al. (CN 108423959 machine translation provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2009/0151233).
Regarding claim 15, Vitto teaches that the pyrolysis unit is fed solely by the solids from the dryer and does not have a further waste inlet as claimed. Miller teaches that for pyrolysis reactors, providing multiple waste inlets (20 25 26) allow for multiple sources of material to undergo pyrolysis either in a mixed feed or a sequential feed (Fig. 2 and [0038]-[0039]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple waste inlets to the pyrolysis unit in order to allow for pyrolysis of different streams via one pyrolysis unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777